« Natty, Nate, Nathaniel, Daniel, Hawkeye | Main | once more, with feeling: negative reviews »
more on negative reviews
Beth has a thread over at her weblog dedicated to discussion the substantive points she made. It would be great if those who really liked and admired ABSA will go over there to discuss what worked so well for them -- although at this point it looks as if the pro-ABSA folks have been silent. That's too bad, because I'd follow the discussion with great interest.
What concerns me personally is the repeated references to tone. The OED's definition:
tone: A particular style in discourse or writing, which expresses the person's sentiment or reveals his character; also spec. in literary criticism, an author's attitude to his subject matter or audience; the distinctive mood created by this. (Cf. 9.)Now, reading over Beth's review this is what I see in terms of tone: frustration, disappointment, anger. A review written for a weblog audience with a central message: once I adored these characters and these stories, and now I don't, and here, exactly, is what went wrong for me: [...]
Some people seemed surprised that I liked the review. So I'm going to explain my take on this subject overall:
I don't mind a strong tone.
If there is going to be a long discussion of the merits of a novel, I prefer that the discussion be as explicit and detailed as possible.
Thoughtful content is more important than presentation. I like a good review whether it was written for a weblog (in a more familiar way) or the NYT (in a more detached way).
There's a distinction between a review that criticizes the book, and one that criticizes the author. Beth's was the former. For an example of the latter, see my discussion of a NYT review that went way over the line in taking apart the author's life and background. I'd consider this an example of a professional negative review, well written and a discredit to the reviewer.
Women who write fiction that has anything to do with romance (and you can fill in the dozens of labels here) have to start providing honest, straight forward, thoughtful reviews that go beyond cheerleading. We are strong and smart enough to disagree with each other. There are some people out there who have been working toward this end (the Smart Bitches spring to mind), but it should be the rule rather than the exception.
Reviewer X's dislike of Novel Z should not be taken as an attack on the author. To automatically jump to that conclusion is to cut off discussion before it can start.
There you go. My take on reviews in general, on Beth's review in particular, and life as we know it.
October 29, 2005 11:16 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/588
Comments
I have just read Beth's review and loved it. I have tried to read Diana Gabaldon's books but Claire and Jamie have never seemed interesting to me, I've never felt that spark for them that I have for other characters. But reading Beth's review really makes me wish that I had because for all her fury, there is that strong love for these characters that you can feel seeping through her rage. It really makes me want to feel that, feel that hook that she felt with the first few books. If I had never read any of Diana's books, reading Beth's review would want me to go and try them out, if only to feel something of what she did.
I think that being a fan of something does not mean that you stop being critical of the text, of when the author or writers do something to the characters which seem out of place, pointless. Don't get me started on the birth scene in Peacekeeper wars or on the ending to Serenity.
Posted by: Jacqui at October 29, 2005 05:16 PM
I liked Beth's review (and agreed with some of it) and I like ABOSSA (and FC and DOA), most of what I've read of it, anyway (also loved Serenity, ending included -- I thought it fit with the story, out of the blue as it was). Maybe I'm not being critical enough?
Posted by: grace at October 29, 2005 05:28 PM
You know, Sara - what you mentioned about venue (in the other thread) is really important, I think. I didn't take a professional tone, and that was done quite purposefully. I write like how I talk to my friends and, as a writer of fiction myself, I would absolutely love to eavesdrop onto an unedited, perfectly candid blather session about my book. One of the things I ask people who read my own stuff is "What part did you just hate?" I ask it because I'm afraid they won't tell me otherwise.
Anyway, that's the kind of talk I like best about other books - the kind you'd hear when real people are talking and think no one else is listening/judging. I like it as a reader and a writer, but not everyone does. Which is why I do my reviewing on my blog and not for some real-live publication. ;-)
Posted by: Beth at October 29, 2005 06:04 PM
It seems highly innapproriate to me to find an extremely negative review of another authors work on your homepage. Even if everything said by Beth is valid why would you want to post it here? If Diana Gabaldon ever considered you a friend I doubt she does now!
As for the tone, I don't speak to any one, friends, enemies, whatever, using the language Beth used. Fuck is not an adjective! It made it hard to read. It also took away some of her credibility, because it made her sound like she's a foul mouthed 16 old.
I am telling you this, because I have so enjoyed your books and respect you as an author, but I think posting something like this on your homepage can hurt your reputation.
Posted by: Dana at October 30, 2005 07:21 PM
Fuck is not an adjective!
This is true. "Fuck" is used as a verb and noun, generally. The adjective would be "fucking," and several other compound words that use the word in question are also adjectives, like "fuckwitted," "fuckheaded," "fucked-up," etc.
Once again, I'm fascinated by how some people get hung up on foul language and are unable to get to the core message of a piece of work because of its inclusion, while other people aren't bothered one whit by it.
Posted by: Candy at October 30, 2005 08:00 PM
Candy, thanks for pointing that out. Dana -- please see the post I put up today.
Posted by: sara at October 30, 2005 08:21 PM